bucfanclw wrote:I take that guy's assessments with a handful of salt. He's got a history of anti-American military "findings" that are typically based of YouTube videos and he collaborates with Infowars and RT. Not saying he's not right here, but he seems to have motives.

Collaborates w/ Infowars and RT? Someone get a rope so we can hang that TRAITOR!!!

Why not just be consistent and call him a conspiracy theorist? Has something changed since last week?

Alex Jones is about to lose his parental rights due to his insane rantings and for someone that claims to be a small government, anti establishment, Trump supporter, I'm surprised you would defend a state-run media outlet like RT.

I guess credibility for you is dependent on whether it supports your view or not.

beardmcdoug wrote:how dare you Delt!? how dare you even suggest a scientific, evidence-based analysis should be brought into consideration!? Didn't you see the pictures?! Think of the babies! Bomb them now!!

guess you're just another tin foil hat wearing drumpf support hur hur

I take that guy's assessments with a handful of salt. He's got a history of anti-American military "findings" that are typically based of YouTube videos and he collaborates with Infowars and RT. Not saying he's not right here, but he seems to have motives.

bucfanclw wrote:I take that guy's assessments with a handful of salt. He's got a history of anti-American military "findings" that are typically based of YouTube videos and he collaborates with Infowars and RT. Not saying he's not right here, but he seems to have motives.

Collaborates w/ Infowars and RT? Someone get a rope so we can hang that TRAITOR!!!

Why not just be consistent and call him a conspiracy theorist? Has something changed since last week?

It's literally insanity to consider InfoWars more than a joke. I feel like sometimes you believe sources like Brietbart and InfoWars are real news source just because they talk good about your guy.

deltbucs wrote:I know your hypersensitive about voting for the Don the con and probably a bit frustrated that it's become impossible to defend him, but this isn't about him or you. This is about Washington as a whole. If you read the article you would see how the professor talks about how we made this **** up when Obama was in office, too.

Again...I'm very surprised that a media source as mainstream as Yahoo would print this.

I confused your hatred of Trump and hatred of establishment politics here I suppose. But they are merging on the Syria CW issue so it's a delt double whammy.

On this issue you're preaching to the choir, I was the first person here to question the legitimacy of the CW attack iirc. When I did so and stated the coverage didn't smell right and we should know what the evidence was I got called a conspiracy theorist.

And fwiw, I'll defend Trump on some things. Like immigration, the Trump-Russia falsehoods, etc. But regime change in Syria is a total establishment move I never supported and won't now just b/c Trump says so. As terrible as Trump may be to you and others, to me, he'll always be better than Hillary. But there are a million other people that I could say that about so it's not really an endorsement as much as it's a jab.

I just don't understand how even his supporters who bought into his fast-talking salesman schtick can consider him anything better than terrible at this point. It's so clearly obvious that everything that comes out of his mouth is bullshit and he doesn't give a single **** about anyone but himself.

bucfanclw wrote:I take that guy's assessments with a handful of salt. He's got a history of anti-American military "findings" that are typically based of YouTube videos and he collaborates with Infowars and RT. Not saying he's not right here, but he seems to have motives.

Did he really collaborate with InfoWars?

All of his releases are done with Maram Susli, or "partisangirl" and "Syria girl" as she's known. I'm not trying to discredit his findings, just saying I'm not sure how much I trust him as a source.

And people think America is hated by people in some regions only because of the religion they practice. I wish we would just get the **** out of there, but there's just too much money for Trump and Tillerson and everyone else to be made by creating war.

bucfanclw wrote:All of his releases are done with Maram Susli, or "partisangirl" and "Syria girl" as she's known. I'm not trying to discredit his findings, just saying I'm not sure how much I trust him as a source.

Does that mean he collaborated with InfoWars?

He has ties, but you're right. I can't find concrete info on collaboration there. My mistake.

And people think America is hated by people in some regions only because of the religion they practice. I wish we would just get the **** out of there, but there's just too much money for Trump and Tillerson and everyone else to be made by creating war.

There's a good map in that link to show what forces are holding what areas. Gives a bit of background about which group would stand to benefit from each attack.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/a ... 46175.htmlAnd people think America is hated by people in some regions only because of the religion they practice. I wish we would just get the **** out of there, but there's just too much money for Trump and Tillerson and everyone else to be made by creating war.

That last sentence is right on!!

Why did they feel the need to use the qualifier "peaceful" when describing the mosque? What other types of mosques are there?

Why are Brietbart and other right biased outlets admonished by you, but aljazeera ok?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/a ... 46175.htmlAnd people think America is hated by people in some regions only because of the religion they practice. I wish we would just get the **** out of there, but there's just too much money for Trump and Tillerson and everyone else to be made by creating war.

That last sentence is right on!!

Why did they feel the need to use the qualifier "peaceful" when describing the mosque? What other types of mosques are there?

Why are Brietbart and other right biased outlets admonished by you, but aljazeera ok?

Are you serious? You can't really think Al Jazeera is less credible than Brietbart? Do you just think that because it's name doesn't sound 'Merican?

Why did they feel the need to use the qualifier "peaceful" when describing the mosque? What other types of mosques are there?

Why are Brietbart and other right biased outlets admonished by you, but aljazeera ok?

Are you serious? You can't really think Al Jazeera is less credible than Brietbart? Do you just think that because it's name doesn't sound 'Merican?

My personal belief is that there are NO media outlets I would use the "credible" in describing. But let's not conflate credibility w/ bias here. All media has bias these days and I think it's become incumbent on us individually to know the bias prior to consuming information from those outlets. The "news" will sprinkle only specific facts that support their narrative and then spin the story in that direction. This is true of CNN, FoxNews, Brietbart, MSNBC, Al-Jazeera, BBC, or whoever else. The days of 'hard news' are over imo.

DreadNaught wrote:In actual terrorism news there are rumblings that ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi has been captured in Syria. Waiting for more info on it since it's only fringe media reporting on it right now.

If true, it's a good thing.

That's an odd one. The Europeans (DESI) are saying Russian and Syrian forces apprehended him, while Russia is saying they have no knowledge. If he was apprehended, I'm not sure what Russia would be trying to gain by denying it.

deltbucs wrote:Are you serious? You can't really think Al Jazeera is less credible than Brietbart? Do you just think that because it's name doesn't sound 'Merican?

My personal belief is that there are NO media outlets I would use the "credible" in describing. But let's not conflate credibility w/ bias here. All media has bias these days and I think it's become incumbent on us individually to know the bias prior to consuming information from those outlets. The "news" will sprinkle only specific facts that support their narrative and then spin the story in that direction. This is true of CNN, FoxNews, Brietbart, MSNBC, Al-Jazeera, BBC, or whoever else. The days of 'hard news' are over imo.

And you think their "anit-West bias" is worse than Brietbart's junk? It seems to me that you still don't understand the difference between outlets like CNN, Fox News, and Al Jazeera compared to actual fake news outlets like Brietbart. It's concerning that Trump folks think this way.

DreadNaught wrote:My personal belief is that there are NO media outlets I would use the "credible" in describing. But let's not conflate credibility w/ bias here. All media has bias these days and I think it's become incumbent on us individually to know the bias prior to consuming information from those outlets. The "news" will sprinkle only specific facts that support their narrative and then spin the story in that direction. This is true of CNN, FoxNews, Brietbart, MSNBC, Al-Jazeera, BBC, or whoever else. The days of 'hard news' are over imo.

And you think their "anit-West bias" is worse than Brietbart's junk? It seems to me that you still don't understand the difference between outlets like CNN, Fox News, and Al Jazeera compared to actual fake news outlets like Brietbart. It's concerning that Trump folks think this way.

Christ man, what is your obsession w/ Brietbart?? I lumped them with others just because your hate boner goes off when they are mentioned. I'd bet anything you've clicked on that site more than I have. I'm just curious why people here are so outraged w/ an outlet they consider to be BS.

Why is Brietbart "actual fake news" and not Newsweek or TIME or CNN or FoxNews? What criteria are you using here? Who else is "actual fake news"? Is that different from regular fake news? If so, how?

deltbucs wrote:Are you serious? You can't really think Al Jazeera is less credible than Brietbart? Do you just think that because it's name doesn't sound 'Merican?

My personal belief is that there are NO media outlets I would use the "credible" in describing. But let's not conflate credibility w/ bias here. All media has bias these days and I think it's become incumbent on us individually to know the bias prior to consuming information from those outlets. The "news" will sprinkle only specific facts that support their narrative and then spin the story in that direction. This is true of CNN, FoxNews, Brietbart, MSNBC, Al-Jazeera, BBC, or whoever else. The days of 'hard news' are over imo.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/a ... 46175.htmlAnd people think America is hated by people in some regions only because of the religion they practice. I wish we would just get the **** out of there, but there's just too much money for Trump and Tillerson and everyone else to be made by creating war.

That last sentence is right on!!

Why did they feel the need to use the qualifier "peaceful" when describing the mosque? What other types of mosques are there?

Why are Brietbart and other right biased outlets admonished by you, but aljazeera ok?

DreadNaught wrote:My personal belief is that there are NO media outlets I would use the "credible" in describing. But let's not conflate credibility w/ bias here. All media has bias these days and I think it's become incumbent on us individually to know the bias prior to consuming information from those outlets. The "news" will sprinkle only specific facts that support their narrative and then spin the story in that direction. This is true of CNN, FoxNews, Brietbart, MSNBC, Al-Jazeera, BBC, or whoever else. The days of 'hard news' are over imo.

The idea that journalism has given way for the need for profit is as old as the printing press. Because it has ALWAYS been that way.

You guys ever heard of William Randolph Hurst? He was the Rupert Murdoch of his time.

There's no such thing as perfectly balanced journalism. Just some better than others.

Media reports what it wants our conversation to be about. Back when I was a kid, you rarely heard about child molestations or abuse. It wasn't because it wasn't happening. It was because it wasn't being reported! Those running the media in those days didn't want that narrative out there.

deltbucs wrote:So you don't believe any of the sources cited in the article?

And you think their "anit-West bias" is worse than Brietbart's junk? It seems to me that you still don't understand the difference between outlets like CNN, Fox News, and Al Jazeera compared to actual fake news outlets like Brietbart. It's concerning that Trump folks think this way.

Christ man, what is your obsession w/ Brietbart?? I lumped them with others just because your hate boner goes off when they are mentioned. I'd bet anything you've clicked on that site more than I have. I'm just curious why people here are so outraged w/ an outlet they consider to be BS.

Why is Brietbart "actual fake news" and not Newsweek or TIME or CNN or FoxNews? What criteria are you using here? Who else is "actual fake news"? Is that different from regular fake news? If so, how?

It's insane to me that the definitions of the words "fake" and "news" have become blurry for Trump supporters.

DreadNaught wrote:My personal belief is that there are NO media outlets I would use the "credible" in describing. But let's not conflate credibility w/ bias here. All media has bias these days and I think it's become incumbent on us individually to know the bias prior to consuming information from those outlets. The "news" will sprinkle only specific facts that support their narrative and then spin the story in that direction. This is true of CNN, FoxNews, Brietbart, MSNBC, Al-Jazeera, BBC, or whoever else. The days of 'hard news' are over imo.

The idea that journalism has given way for the need for profit is as old as the printing press. Because it has ALWAYS been that way.

You guys ever heard of William Randolph Hurst? He was the Rupert Murdoch of his time.

There's no such thing as perfectly balanced journalism. Just some better than others.

Perhaps, I don't have an issue with that. I'd say that the idea that journalism has given way for the need for profit is more prevalent in the internet age w/ social media and advertisers spending money based on # of clicks. But your point is still the same.

My point about hard news is the stuff that is supposed to be balanced facts when reporting a story. But cable news and then the internet/social media has destroyed that since the # of clicks and race to be first has way more importance than being correct in the media. It's all more biased than it's ever been and the divide is only widening.

It's all about making a salacious/outlandish headline for a story that contains specific facts that support your spin while purposely omitting facts that do not, and get it out/published as quick as possible. This is the news world we live in during the information age.

As far as delt's point on credibility. I trust stories with named sources and verifiable facts (formally known as journalism). This is true when it comes to sports, politics, local, or global news. The specific media outlet means very little to me these days as there is no 'most trusted names in news' anymore. So NO, I don't trust CNN over FoxNews (or vice versa). I pretty much dismiss any story without named sources and verifiable facts these days unless there are multiple outlets reporting the same. I don't know how anyone can trust any media outlet on face value or brand name these days regardless of your individual ideology. I believe there is alot of recent polling that supports that view also.

DreadNaught wrote:Christ man, what is your obsession w/ Brietbart?? I lumped them with others just because your hate boner goes off when they are mentioned. I'd bet anything you've clicked on that site more than I have. I'm just curious why people here are so outraged w/ an outlet they consider to be BS.

Why is Brietbart "actual fake news" and not Newsweek or TIME or CNN or FoxNews? What criteria are you using here? Who else is "actual fake news"? Is that different from regular fake news? If so, how?

It's insane to me that the definitions of the words "fake" and "news" have become blurry for Trump supporters.

Believe whatever want and continue to label folks if it make you feel reassured. But the FACT is that trust in the media is at an all time low in this country. If you think it's specific to Trump supporters then maybe you're not as smart as you think.

Three people were shot to death in less than a minute at separate locations Tuesday in Fresno, California, authorities said. A fugitive wanted in a previous homicide was arrested at the scene. The man, identified as Kori Ali Muhammad, 39, who investigators said used the alias "Black Jesus," was arrested and was being held awaiting at least four counts of murder, Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer told reporters. In addition to the three people who were killed Tuesday, Muhammad had been wanted in connection with the shooting death of a security guard at a Motel 6 last Thursday, Dyer said. At least 16 rounds were fired in less than a minute at four locations, including a Catholic Charities facility, where the gunman killed a man in the parking lot, Dyer said. None of the victims worked at the charity, he said. While police said the gunman yelled "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic) during the incident, it was too early to say whether terrorism was a factor, Dyer said. Muhammad is black, and all of Tuesday's victims were white, Dyer, said. Social media accounts linked to Muhammad expressed anti-white and anti-government sentiments, Dyer said. "This was a random act of violence," Dyer said. "These were unprovoked attacks by an individual who was intent on carrying out homicides today."

DreadNaught wrote:As far as delt's point on credibility. I trust stories with named sources and verifiable facts (formally known as journalism). This is true when it comes to sports, politics, local, or global news. The specific media outlet means very little to me these days as there is no 'most trusted names in news' anymore. So NO, I don't trust CNN over FoxNews (or vice versa). I pretty much dismiss any story without named sources and verifiable facts these days unless there are multiple outlets reporting the same. I don't know how anyone can trust any media outlet on face value or brand name these days regardless of your individual ideology. I believe there is alot of recent polling that supports that view also.

Dude. This is some Trump-level flip flopping. How can you say that when you just blew off what I posted because the source isn't based in 'Merica? You didn't say anything about the facts and citations in the article being inaccurate...you just blew it off because of the source. Remember? You just did this.

DreadNaught wrote:My personal belief is that there are NO media outlets I would use the "credible" in describing. But let's not conflate credibility w/ bias here. All media has bias these days and I think it's become incumbent on us individually to know the bias prior to consuming information from those outlets. The "news" will sprinkle only specific facts that support their narrative and then spin the story in that direction. This is true of CNN, FoxNews, Brietbart, MSNBC, Al-Jazeera, BBC, or whoever else. The days of 'hard news' are over imo.

The idea that journalism has given way for the need for profit is as old as the printing press. Because it has ALWAYS been that way.

You guys ever heard of William Randolph Hurst? He was the Rupert Murdoch of his time.

There's no such thing as perfectly balanced journalism. Just some better than others.

WRH was exponentially bigger than Murdoch. Fox, CNN and NBC follow his yellow journalism blue print. Hearst basically started the Spanish-American War because he completely controlled the editorial content in all his papers and used this influence to artificially manufacture outrage against Spain.

Hearst also almost destroyed arguably the greatest film ever made before anyone could see it as Citizen Kane was a satire of his entire life.